05-03-2024, 08:54 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-03-2024, 09:10 PM by gayprojectforum.)
By observing the access statistics and the access keys to the section of the Forum dedicated to sex, it is possible to detect some objective data:
1) The topic of masturbation, in most cases, is sought in association with the topic of sexual orientation, that is, most of the searches that lead to posts that deal with masturbation also contain the theme “sexual orientation”, that's why we'll call “sexual orientation” "first association".
2) Still on the subject of masturbation, but with notable detachment from the first association, other associated topics appear: "morality", "Catholic church", "sin", these themes, as a whole, constitute the second association.
3) At a considerable distance from the second association, in terms of number of searches, other associated topics appear, such as "gay affection", "gay couple", "gay sexuality".
The first association is so frequent because it can be linked to accesses that come not only from gay guys but also from a large component of straight guys who may have doubts about their sexuality and are looking for information regarding masturbation and masturbatory fantasies seen from a perspective typically gay. The first association is very frequent because OCD, i.e. obsessive-compulsive disorder centered on the fear of being gay, leads to an obsessive search for confirmation.
The second association is typical of young people who see or have seen masturbation as something irreconcilable with religion and are trying to define the issue.
The third association is typical of guys who are no longer very young, often part of a stable couple, for whom, in the majority of cases, masturbation is no longer something experienced in solitude but is a component of a true couple sexuality, a couple sexuality now without problems of orientation or compromise with this or that moral code, but already mature, that is, already experienced in a dimension that is no longer problematic but truly affective.
The first two associations can be considered problematic because masturbation is considered a symptom of possible homosexuality and for this reason it can be systematically feared or avoided, or it is felt as something to be repressed in the name of a superior morality. The third association is the result of a vision in which guys no longer try to justify masturbation but to frame it in the context of couple sexuality, masturbation is now perceived as an element that is no longer problematic, no longer an alternative to couple sexuality and essentially adolescent to be considered irreconcilable with adult sexuality, but precisely as an integral and ineliminable part of a couple sexuality, which if it were not shared with one's partner would risk becoming a strictly individual mental place, that is, essentially a way of excluding the other from one side absolutely not negligible of one's most intimate world.
These are obviously three very different points of view which tend to concern two distinct periods of life, a first period of formation-structuring of sexuality and a second period of emotional stability.
A concept must be clarified at the outset: it makes sense to talk about masturbation "exclusively" when sexual stimulation is sought as a form of "sexual pleasure".
It cannot be emphasized enough that anxiety, before, during and after stimulation, the compulsion to test oneself, the idea of testing oneself sexually to evaluate one's reactions, are all things that exclude a priori that the act is being performed aims at sexual pleasure. Whether it ends with ejaculation or not, in these cases it is absolutely inappropriate to talk of masturbation.
This premise has the obvious consequence that, in these cases, the compulsive behavior is just a "test" and loses any meaning relating to sexual orientation. When autoeroticism is anxious or compulsive, or interpreted as a confirmatory test of sexual orientation, it is not a form of masturbation and has none of the meanings that can be attributed to true masturbation which is never anxious but gratifying, is never the effect of compulsions but it is wanted, sought, desired, without anxiety neither before nor during nor after.
Paradoxically therefore, the first association, when referred not to the true masturbation but to the "so-called" masturbation, i.e. self-stimulation not really experienced as a search for sexual pleasure, is completely inadequate for the confirmatory and "not authentically sexual" aim that one could expected. In the case, however, of the second association, i.e. the association with contents linked to religion or morality, the research can be useful, because it can contribute to evaluating for what it is the a priori demonization of a behavior which is objectively not only universally followed but also useful for achieving a general state of balance and well-being. In essence, correct information on the topic of masturbation can reduce the risk of making it "the" dominant problem of early youth. Correct information on masturbation helps to see it as a normal component of life, to be managed with common sense but without preconceptions.
The third association, which generally concerns guys who already are out of adolescence, apparently seems more difficult to understand, because it is taken for granted that masturbation is a typically adolescent phenomenon or in any case is something linked to early youth and we tend to think that masturbation and life of a true sexual couple are two essentially irreconcilable realities.
All this derives from the fact that we tend to identify masturbation with solo masturbation. In reality, masturbation in the presence of one's partner and mutual masturbation are fundamental components of sexual, and more specifically homosexual, contact, by which I mean that in a homosexual relationship, while anal penetration is not at all as common an act as people commonly suppose, and is not even part of the usual practices of many gay couples, on the contrary masturbation in the presence of the partner and mutual masturbation are in practice very frequent and almost inevitable, these are in reality the simplest and most immediate sexual practices which present, among other things, the characteristic that they are also absolutely the least dangerous in terms of preventing sexually transmitted diseases, which should never be underestimated.
I underline that masturbation during a couple's relationship occurs in constant visual contact with the partner and therefore allows us to understand the partner's level of participation and is precisely for this reason a form of unreserved sharing of sexual intimacy.
Talking with young people, we note that particular value is generally attributed to the simultaneous achievement of orgasm by the two partners and, following the same way, there is a tendency to interpret as unsatisfactory a meeting in which only one of the two reaches orgasm and even a meeting in which the orgasm is not substantially simultaneous.
These evaluations are typical of guys who reach orgasm first and are led to consider the absence of the other's orgasm (which in reality is rare) and also the delay in the other's orgasm as the effect of the lack of or insufficient participation on the part of the partner, or of the disharmony in the couple's sexuality. These assessments, however, generally do not find any confirmation from the partner who arrives late to orgasm, unless the partner who arrives early, once he reaches ejaculation, forgets the presence of the partner and behaves as if the partner did not exist, for instance getting dressed and leaving immediately. These are precisely the behaviors that alarm the partner who needs more time.
Couple sexuality is intrinsically different from strictly individual sexuality, it is not the sum of two single sexualities but the result of each person's participation in the other's intimate life. Respect for the other, for his times, for his needs, is the fundamental characteristic of couple sexuality, which is incompatible with abuse and a sense of domination. On the other hand, the most characteristic and most gratifying aspect of a couple sexuality certainly does not lie in the individual performance but in the observation of the couple's harmony, that is, the reconcilability of individual sexualities in a real couple sexuality.
Disappointment in a homosexual relationship derives from the observation of the partner's lack of or reduced participation. I give an example to clarify what I mean. If two guys who are regular partners meet and have enough time and privacy for a sexual encounter, but one of them is not physically well or is going through a particularly critical emotional moment, it may even be possible that the situation leads to sex, and it cannot be taken for granted that a priori this is something to avoid, but even if it is achieved without forcing, the participation of the partner in crisis can hardly be similar to his usual participation in sex normally experienced with his partner. The times and even the levels of involvement will most likely be different and not realizing this and almost expecting the usual behaviors from the partner in crisis can be very unpleasant for him.
If, however, the couple's life works and even sex is experienced in relation to the physical and emotional state of the partner, the sexual experience will be seen as positive by both partners, because the partner in crisis will feel the attention and respect from of his friend, i.e. he will notice that for his partner the relational aspect of the relationship is more important than the performance itself, i.e. that for the partner the person matters more than the performance.
While it is relatively easy to experience sexuality as a couple in early youth, when the immediately sexual drive does not have to deal too much with a series of psychological counter-forces that tend to slow it down, also because many times nothing is expected from sexual contact other than the immediate satisfaction of the sexual urge, it is certainly much more difficult to experience a gratifying sexuality in later youth, over the age of thirty and then in mature age, over the age of forty, because in these cases more complex values related to a more profound communication are attributed to sex, from which it is objectively difficult to expect full gratification. In these cases, when some dissonance is felt in the couple's sexuality, the mind easily lets itself go to interpretations that generally tend to weaken the relationship, unless the dialogue between the partners is truly profound. In essence, if the dialogue is truly rewarding, because it is authentically communicative, the tendency to give excessive weight to some dissonance on a sexual level is largely reduced.
The communicativeness of sex manifests itself in letting go, in putting aside mental reserves and in truly sharing one's intimacy with the partner. Repetitive, habitual, imitative behaviors, those simply tolerated but not really desired, are not by their nature communicative. Sex experienced in an almost separate way, or only on a physical level, without looking each other in the eyes, without affective gestures that are not explicitly sexual, such as exchanging smiles or caresses, is not communicative.
Seeing a partner who is not sexually participatory is objectively frustrating, even more so if the fact is not episodic and there is the suspicion that the relationship has now lost its original motivations and continues only through inertia. The behavior that is by far the most frustrating is the unexpected refusal not of a specific sexual performance but of the sharing of intimacy, in a situation in which, previously, not only had there never been any refusal, but there had been a substantial affinity and notable harmony as a couple. Rejection manifests itself in the most brutal and traumatic way in “getting dressed and leaving” without giving explanations.
If you have the feeling that sexual intercourse is in fact impossible, but you do not see any refusal of sexual intimacy, that is, if your partner does not get dressed and shows himself interested to talk a little without each denying the other their intimacy, the encounter does not lose its characteristic of sexual intimacy which can, paradoxically, become even stronger and more significant.
It should be kept in mind that in long-standing fixed couples, behaviors inevitably tend to become standardized and repetitive, while in very open couples, however, each meeting is unique and is affected by the emotional state of the partners at that moment and above all by the experiences achieved or not achieved by each partner with other partners.
It is not uncommon that in the context of a very free couple, that is, a couple who do not consider themselves as such, but only have episodic sexual encounters, even if objectively important on an emotional and communicative level, one comes to realize that the discomfort of the partner depends on other people. In such situations, the partner who realizes the discomfort of his friend-companion often uses sexual intimacy to console his friend and make him understand that his world has not collapsed completely, but there is still someone who listens to him and understands him even if he isn't capable of making him truly happy.
Sharing sexual intimacy or even simple nudity creates an atmosphere of mutual trust that is very difficult to create in any other way and in fact strengthens the friendship without producing trauma.
In these situations, which are far from uncommon, masturbation in the presence of the partner or mutual masturbation can play an important role, provided that they are behaviors that are appreciated by both partners and not simply tolerated because it is impossible at the moment to achieve anything better.
When the emotional-communicative aspect of shared intimacy is truly rewarding, it is reasonable to believe that the relationship itself is useful and positive for both partners, even in the presence of non-exclusive and very flexible relationships. A relationship is important and positive when it helps you feel good, the idea that a relationship can determine an individual's happiness is a pure possibility whose realization is a rather rare event. Even the idea that sharing sexual intimacy can help the partners of a true emotional relationship, although not exclusive and elastic, feel good is certainly only a possibility, but the fact that the surrounding conditions in this case are very less restrictive than those required by close and exclusive couples makes this hypothesis somehow more realistic, always if it is taken for granted that at the basis there is a true emotional relationship and accepted for what it is, that is, with all the limitations that in fact make it possible.
It is not uncommon for couples of friends to end up to share sexual intimacy as a result of a relationship of mutual trust, which does not mean sexual fidelity or monogamy, but real involvement in each other's lives.
Thinking about sexuality mixed with friendship will probably sound strange to the ears of those who have an exclusive concept of a couple live and are used to think that the use of sexuality should always and in any case be reserved for couple life and moreover for a stable and monogamous couple life, on the marital model, but even in these things lifestyles change, relationship models change and many dogmas that seemed insurmountable are overcome without causing any trouble.
Friendships that also have sexual implications certainly exist and when we ask ourselves what a single gay is (but the same goes for straight people too) we should understand that the single is not a monk but a guy who realizes or dreams of realizing romantic friendships with sexual implications as well. This fact does not represent the violation of a taboo but only an element of evolution of social customs.